Defending the Christian faith and promoting its wisdom against the secular and religious challenges of our day.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

The Discrimination of Non-Discrimination and Christian Compromise

Vanderbilt
University was founded by
Methodists in the 1870s. However, things have changed. According to Albert Mohler,

In
more recent months, Vanderbilt’s administration decided to push secularism
to the extreme — launching a virtual vendetta against religious
organizations on campus. Officials of the university informed religious
groups that had been recognized student organizations that they would have
to comply with an absolute non-discrimination policy. This means that
religious organizations (primarily Christian) must now allow any
Vanderbilt student to be a candidate for a leadership office, regardless
of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. In other words, a Christian
student group would be forced to allow the candidacy of an atheist. A
group of Christians who believe in the Bible’s standard of sexual morality
would be required to allow the candidacy of a homosexual member. There can
be absolutely no discrimination, the university insists, even if that
means that Christian organizations are no longer actually Christian.

Ironically, Vanderbilt’s non-discrimination policy is all
about discrimination. I haven’t heard how this policy is impacting other campus
groups. Is the woman’s support group now required to open their doors to men?
Must the Democratic student club now open membership and leadership to Republicans?
If Vanderbilt is applying their policy across-the-board, it is strange that none
of the non-Christian groups are protesting it. The controversy seems to have
started when:

School
administrators started reviewing the constitutions of all student groups
after members of Christian fraternity Beta Upsilon Chi removed one of their
leaders over his views on homosexuality. (World Magazine, 5/5/12, 53)

Perhaps the campus non-Christian groups have avoided this
controversy simply because their constitution didn’t specify requirements for
membership or leadership. Or perhaps they had few scruples about discriminating,
despite the fact that they are now “required to sign a document affirming the
nondiscrimination policy.”

The fact that two of the largest Protestant groups –
Reformed University Fellowship (RUF of the PCA) and the Baptist Collegiate
Ministry (BCM) – has agreed to sign has deprived the Christian opposition of
much muscle. Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt law professor, lamented that RUF and
BCM:

Made a
decision that was very self-interested and that does not advance the cause
of Christ.

“I
just don’t think [Vanderbilt] is there yet. I don’t think we have to fear
that. Let that come when it does…Let’s continue as we are and take that to
the university. If we need to leave, we will.” (54)

RUF
does not feel as threatened by the nondiscrimination policy because it
doesn’t interpret leadership the way some other groups do, Mays [an RUF
coordinator] said. Each RUF chapter is led by an ordained PCA minister…That
job does not fall on the students, like it does at some ministries.

Perhaps by having an ordained minister leading their
meetings has given RUF some breathing room. Nevertheless, they still regard
Vanderbilt’s policy as a violation of religious liberty and are willing to sign
the university’s non-discrimination statement, although they insist that they will
not compromise the Gospel.

Two issues come to mind. Shouldn’t RUF be standing in
solidarity with those Christian groups who do have more to loose? Also, by
signing the Vanderbilt policy statement, isn’t RUF playing fast-and-loose with
the truth? On the one hand, RUF signs that they will not discriminate. However,
they acknowledge that their Christian faith requires that they discriminate!

However, it must be granted that there are occasions when
the truth must be bent for the sake of protecting life. There were the
midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, who had lied to their Egyptian masters to save
Israelite babies (Exodus 1). There was also Rahab the harlot who lied to
protect the Israelite spies. However, these examples seem to be rare exceptions
- hardly precedents to which RUF could appeal.

Truth doesn’t belong to us. It is not a commodity like clay
and bricks, which we can mold to suit ourselves. Truth is not something to
manipulate and twist for our own benefit. We do not create it; it is something
to which we must conform. It is a sacred endowment, entrusted to us by the Author
of all truth.

I pray that RUF and BCM will reconsider. We have a
responsibility to expose the works of evil (Eph. 5:11), especially when they
threaten something so important.